# [09:03] <MikeSmith> "If an enumerated attribute is specified, the attribute's value must be an ASCII case-insensitive match for one of the given keywords that are not said to be non-conforming, with no leading or trailing whitespace."

# [13:22] <annevk42> Philip`, is it easy to find more pages with broken Location headers?

# [13:24] <annevk42> Philip`, it would be cool to have a "out of X amount of links Y amount of links had a Location header and of those Z amount of links had a broken Location header (relative, invalid character). List links that with broken headers: ..."

# [13:41] <hsivonen> I'm very annoyed by the proposal to break DOM Consistency for "language extensions".

# [13:41] <hsivonen> why do "language extensions" have to go poke the "here be dragons" area? can't extensions simply not dabble with colons?

# [13:42] <annevk42> And how does ubiquity-xforms qualify as language extension? Surely non-browsers would have to implement it natively short of implementing an AI-complete algorithm to figure out how it works from the attached ECMAScript library?

# [13:47] <hsivonen> annevk42: I mean the argument is that RDFa is a "language extension" that Firefox extensions could be sensitive to

# [13:48] <annevk42> ah yeah, you mean it would make it a platform extension down the road?

# [13:48] <hsivonen> annevk42: if it that setup becomes successful, why wouldn't the client-side feature migrate into Firefox itself or into the native feature set of other browsers that don't support Firefox extensions but need to support successful features?

# [13:49] <hsivonen> if it's the goal, then the extension should play by the rules that are needed to avoid sucky browser core code down the road

# [13:50] <annevk42> I hadn't reached the part around "It needs to be noted that such nodes are placed into the DOM today differently by HTML and XML parsers." yet. That's seems like a terrible solution.

# [13:50] <jgraham> hsivonen: Sure. But W3C people are being told that their baby is ugly and they are trying to find ways to route around the objections rather than consider their merits

# [13:51] <jgraham> It seems to me that one possible outcome of this is to break XML on the web entirely

# [14:11] <rubys1> re <q>, that was a result of my discussions with Steven where he claimed that the platform portions of XHTML2 had consensus. He said that what is reflected in XHTML2 was based on input from the CSS working group.

# [15:18] <Philip`> "I want to explore the idea of dropping the assumption that the current HTML working group has the sole responsibility for, and absolute dominion over, authoring guidelines." - it seems more like validator developers have absolute dominion in practice

# [15:46] <Philip`> rubys2: Maybe those people weren't aware that 2D graphics has been implemented as a scripting library, or that ubiquity-xforms violates fundamental assumptions of XML (e.g. if I change the prefix from "xf" to "xf2" then it stops work entirely)

# [16:09] <MikeSmith> I'm finding that sam's blog doesn't read quite the same after consuming a full bottle of wine

# [16:09] <Philip`> jgraham: C++ started that way, but changed incompatibly, and C changed too (though much less), and now both languages are evolving to remove some of the differences; similarly XHTML2 and HTML5 started from the existing (X)HTML language, and evolved differently

# [16:10] <mpilgrim> i find it's much more understandable if you read it out loud in the voice of the comic book guy from the simpsons

# [16:31] <LeifHS> Phillip: All I see is that it is said that it is considered "fallback-free". The issue I am after is what it means if an OBJECT with EMBED is considered fallback-free. That, in my mind, means that the definition of how OBJECT works changes. But to be sure, I wanted something that told me what effeect it has.

# [17:21] <LeifHS> Scripting is not my strong sidde, but how can we decide what should be available for scripting without a look at how UAs are treating OBJECT fallback as such? And the trouble is that <embed> is treated as a <source> element by Webkit (and partly by IE). In all the OBJECT-with-EMBED examples that zcorpan looked at, any markup beside EMBED will be revelealed if EMBED is revealed. Except in...

# [17:21] <LeifHS> ...Webkit. See http://www.malform.no/html5/object+youtube. To make an OBJECT-with-EMBED be seen as fallback free, would - it seems to me - be to sanction the WebKit behaviour. (See the thread about interopable object in HTMLwg)

# [18:24] <Philip`> zcorpan: I thought Google was the cause of XML's failure on the web, because AdSense relies on document.write and their business model would be destroyed by XHTML - surely the WG can't be unaware of such facts

# [18:27] <zcorpan> Philip`: if they are aware of google, then they don't seem to know that people use google rather than going to w3.org to find out what <?xml-model?> does upon finding it in view source

# [18:28] <zcorpan> actually "xml-model" is probably not the best name because it gives unrelated results in google

# [22:10] <inimino> I'm trying to make sense of the paragraph that contains " Since HTML parsers are unaware of xmlns attributes, it is entirely too dangerous to encourage the use of default namespaces in conformant HTML."

# [22:10] <inimino> that's the only interpretation I've considered that makes that make any sense, but I'm probably misunderstanding the whole post

# [22:24] <tantek> Hixie, html5/whatwg and microformats was just the start. now there's a whole Open Web Foundation that is "is an independent non-profit dedicated to the development and protection of open, non-proprietary specifications for web technologies." http://openwebfoundation.org/

# [22:28] <Philip`> Hixie: Depends on whether your definition of "resolved" means just from your perspective, or from the perspective of the HTML WG and the people who will disagree with your decision and won't let the matter be closed

# [22:29] <Hixie> Philip`: i mean from the perspective of the WHATWG, since this is #whatwg. It's still not clear to me how things are resolved in the HTMLWG.

# [22:31] <Philip`> Most IRC discussion about the HTML WG occurs in here, so it's good to clarify which is meant :-)

# [22:33] <smedero> rubys1: "I’d like to retain intact the design principles (link to http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/) for platform design as worked out by the browser vendors." Perhaps I'm being nitpicky but FWIW, I thought these were worked out by the HTML WG as a whole in April 2007 and WG consensus to publish them was polled in Nov 2007.

# [23:13] * gsnedders tries to make sense of his English teachers scribbling on his draft

# [23:13] <gsnedders> This would be simpler if it weren't for the fact that he often ended up scribbling down things about what we had ended up tangentially discussed and thus aren't entirely obviously related.

# [23:20] <Philip`> gsnedders: Can't you just cite Wikipedia? It saves a lot of this bother